No, she wasn't right.

To be perfectly honest no. In the Pt 1 Epilogue she was always pissed at John even in the times where he really had no choice or he really was doing his job at defending Pronghorn Ranch. I understand why she was mad, because she doesn’t want him to die and she wants a family life with him with zero violence. But nonetheless in Pt 1 she should’ve been more understanding. The only time I feel her being pissed was justified was John, Charles, and Sadie going after Micah, because like it’s been said in the game, Revenge is a fool’s game. AND, John killing Micah is what led to the Pinkertons finding him and his family, leading to the events of RDR1. Other than that though, no personally don’t believe she was very justified for all the times she’s been pissed at him. Over half the stuff that took place wasn’t even his fault in the first place.

Obviously not, can't believe this is a question.

I do think Abigail was a bit quick to judge John in some circumstances and maybe a bit naive to think that John could or should become a pacifist when he or the farm is being threatened. John not doing anything when the Laramies tried to steal his wagon would've been a worse decision and she should've realised that. Although getting it back meant he was "throwing his weight around", he did recover what was theirs and secured a job at the ranch (not that she necessarily knew the latter). When the Laramie leader tried to fight John, Abigail could've thought about it a bit more before impulsively lashing out at John.

Similarly with the ranch being attacked at night, I think she should've forgiven him for that. As John said, what was he supposed to do? Just sit in his cabin and get the popcorn out? I don't know why she didn't seem to realise that it would not do his career prospects any good.

Not that John is entirely faultless, as I think he could've been a bit more transparent at times about what actually went on instead of giving her vague answers and persuading her it was nothing. Like when he and Jack were shot at, he never really explained the situation to her and made it clear that he had no choice (she might not have believed him, but even so).

Her decision to leave him proved to be a good thing for both of them, though. Not necessarily because John morally deserved to be left alone, but because he (as she once put it) needed to grow up, learn what it's like being alone and having to work hard. She left him for some of those reasons, so she is owed some credit for helping him to become a better reason. She did overreact many times, but her intentions were good.

I think wagwan is the philosopher of the wiki.

She's 100% in the wrong. He was protecting their livelihoods and it's also kinda his job

She had her reasons but she shouldnt be harsh and blame John for what happened between them

Yes she had reasons, she didn’t want anymore trouble from John after they left the VDL gang.

@DarkKing84 well John was protected under the 2nd amendment under the castle doctrine. So from a legal standpoint, John was (for once) in the right. John was protecting HIS wagon, what was he supposed to do? Bow his head down to the robbers?

Surely if he didn’t they would have killed jack and Abigail and John, I don’t get why Abigail was so strict with him the entire story when it was always to protect one of them